Interactive Flight Tech. v. Swissair Swiss Air Transport
| Decision Date | 29 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,No. 00-15933,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,00-15933 |
| Citation | 249 F.3d 1177 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) INTERACTIVE FLIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,, v. SWISSAIR SWISS AIR TRANSPORT COMPANY, LTD.; SR TECHNICS, LTD. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. D.C. No. CV-99-836-HRH
Before: Harry Pregerson, Ferdinand F. Fernandez and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court, which vacated this court's previous judgment of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case for further consideration. See Interactive Flight Techs., Inc. v. Swissair Swiss Air Transp. Co., 121 S. Ct. 1184 (2001). Specifically, the Court directed that we further consider the case in light of the subsequently issued opinion in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 121 S. Ct. 513 (2000). We now do so and, in particular, we reconsider appellees' August 7, 2000, motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff and appellant in this case, Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc., brought several substantive legal claims against three defendants in district court. One defendant was dismissed pursuant to stipulation, and the other two defendants moved to dismiss based in part on arbitration provisions existing in various contracts between the parties. The district court dismissed one cause of action for failure to state a claim, but otherwise construed the motions as seeking to compel arbitration and ordered the parties to arbitrate the remaining claims. The court then dismissed the action without prejudice, and Interactive Flight appealed.
Under our prior case law, dismissals in favor of arbitration were not appealable when the lawsuit concerned substantive legal claims in addition to a party's request to arbitrate. See Cook v. Erbey, 207 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2000); McCarthy v. Providential Corp., 122 F.3d 1242, 1244-45 (9th Cir. 1997). These decisions were law of the circuit at the time of the prior decision in this case--although the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in a case that raised the issue previously decided by our court. See Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 120 S. Ct. 1552 (2000). Accordingly, this court's prior decision applied standing circuit law and granted appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant eventually petitioned for certiorari.
In its Green Tree decision, the Supreme Court held that an order dismissing an action remains a "final decision" within the traditional understanding of that term, notwithstanding that the dismissal was in favor of arbitration and that the parties could later return to court to enter judgment on an arbitration award. See 121 S. Ct. at 519-21; accord McCarthy, 122 F.3d at 1245-49 (Pregerson, J., dissenting). The Green Tree Court therefore concluded that the reference in 9 U.S.C. §§ 16(a)(3) to "a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title" authorizes appeals from orders dismissing actions in favor of arbitration. See 121 S. Ct. at 521. The Court found this to be true regardless of whether the lawsuit was an "independent" action brought solely to enforce arbitration rights, or an action in which the request to arbitrate was "embedded" in a case that also raised substantive legal claims. See id. at 520.
In reaching this result, the Supreme Court noted that a majority of the Courts of Appeals had held to the contrary, see id. at 520 n.3, citing several cases including this court's decision in McCarthy. It is therefore clear that McCarthy and Cook (which followed McCarthy) are no longer good law to the extent that they conflict with Green Tree , and we accordingly overrule them. See United States v. Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCaskill v. Sci Management Corp.
...(6th Cir.2002) (order staying proceedings pending arbitration not appealable under the FAA); Interactive Flight Tech., Inc. v. Swissair Swiss Air Transp. Co., Ltd., 249 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.2001) (order compelling arbitration and dismissing case without prejudice appealable under the FAA); Em......
-
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.
...U.S.C. § 16(a)(3). See Sanford v. Memberworks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Interactive Flight Techs., Inc. v. Swissair Swiss Air Transp. Co., 249 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2001)). We review the district court's order de novo. Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers, 485 F.3d 1066, 107......
-
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney
...case—dismisses the action and enters judgment. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; Interactive Flight Techs., Inc. v. Swissair Swiss Air Transp. Co. , 249 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2001). That factually related claims may be pending in some other forum, such as at DOL, has no impac......
-
Melaas v. Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Dev., LLC
...and its consequences for finality, into § 16(a)(3)." Id. at 88-89, 121 S.Ct. 513. See also Interactive Flight Techs., Inc. v. Swissair Swiss Air Trans. Co., Ltd. , 249 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing Green Tree clarified the law and old decisions distinguishing between dismissa......
-
Green Tree v. Randolph: will this court's decision lessen the effect of the FAA in consumer arbitration?
...the circuit favors arbitration or is hostile towards the process). (119) See generally Interactive Flight Tech., Inc. v. Swissair, 249 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2001); Vera v. First USA Bank N.A., 2001 WL 640979 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2001); Brown v. Wheat First Sec., Inc., 257 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 200......